Were the First Vision accounts taught in Church lessons?

It proves the accounts were discussed in an official magazine. It does not show how many members read it or what lessons normally covered.

You credit the publication while keeping its reach distinct from representative classroom exposure.

Yes. One official article makes the accounts common knowledge across the Church.

Publication establishes availability, not readership or what members remembered.

The printed lesson centers on the canonical Joseph Smith—History story. Optional online resources added later should not be mistaken for the printed lesson text.

You identify the lesson’s core material and keep later supplemental links separate.

It required every class to compare all four accounts because a current webpage links them.

A later optional link does not establish what the original printed manual required.

Yes. The 2004 student manual includes details from 1832, and the 2015 Institute manual explicitly teaches multiple accounts. Those are counterexamples, not proof of typical exposure.

You state both the curricular evidence and its limit.

No. No Church manual ever discussed another account before the Gospel Topics essay.

The 2004 and 2015 manuals disprove an absolute claim that no manual did so.

We can say specific official sources presented them, but the Church also says manuals almost always used 1838 and that it remained most familiar. We do not have evidence here for how many members knew the differences.

You summarize the evidence without turning examples into a claim about every member.

Yes. If a lesson existed, most members must have taken it and understood the differences.

A curriculum document does not report who encountered it or what they retained.